No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Gifts and Kinship: Women as Men’s Signs in ʿArus-e Ātash
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
This essay investigates the Iranian film ʿArus-e Ātash, directed by Khosrow Sināʾi in 1999, through the lens of gender studies. In doing so, it employs Claude Lévi-Strauss’ theory of kinship and elementary structures in order to create a context for the social structure of ʿashira as the prevailing unit of society among Khuzestāni Arabs of Iran. The significance of gift exchange as the predominant form of making alliances, as well as the position of women as the nucleus of these exchanges, is further discussed to shed light on the different socialization of male and female individuals in the ʿashira. Using Lévi-Strauss’ ideas in conjunction with the gender feminism of Kate Millett and Catharine A. MacKinnon, the study explores how women in primitive societies have the dual function of being the men’s property on an objective level as well as the means for alliance-making on a subjective one—a sign and a value at the same time. The essay concludes that men can also be considered as the victims of the patriarchal system since it creates a cultural image of men imbued with excessive masculinity that they may not be able live up to.
- Type
- Film Review Essay
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 2018
References
ʿArus-e Ātash [Bride of fire], directed by Sināʾi, Khosrow (1999; Ahvaz: Chashm-e Sevom, 2000), CD.Google Scholar
Azimi, Shāpur. “Naghsh-e Shakhsiat dar Filmname-ye ʿArus-e Ātash” [The role of character in the script of ʿArus-e Ātash]. Fārābi 39 (2000): 17–26.Google Scholar
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Translated by Parshley, H. M. London: Jonathan Cape, 1956.Google Scholar
Bonakdār, Omid. “Yaddāshti bar Film-e ʿArus-e Ātash” [A note on the movie ʿArus-e Ātash]. Hoquq-e Zanān 17 (2000): 32–33.Google Scholar
Channel 4 News. “Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism.” January 16, 2018. Video, 29:55. Accessed June 15, 2018. https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54Google Scholar
Do Zan [Two women], directed by Milāni, Tahmineh (1999; Tehran: Tasvir-e Donyā-ye Honar, 2000), CD.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile. Incest: The Nature and Origin of the Taboo. Translated by Sagarin, Edward. Las Vegas, CA: L. Stuart, 1963.Google Scholar
Eʿterāz [Protest], directed by Kimiāʾi, Masʿud (2000; Tehran: Honar-e Avval: 2001), CD.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. “The Horror of Incest.” Chap. 1 in Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics. Translated by Strachey, James. London: Routledge, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Patrick, and Arthur Thompson, J.. The Evolution of Sex. Whitefish, MT: Kissinger Publishing, 2007.Google Scholar
ISNA News Agency. “Hamzamān ba Sad Sālegi-ye Sinamā; Sinemā-ye Āfriqā-ye Ahvāz Mored-e Ātash-suzi Qarār Gereft [On the centennial of cinema; cinema Āfriqa in Ahvāz gets burned], September 13, 2000. https://www.isna.ir/news/7906-01695/Google Scholar
Jām-e Jam Online. “Az Pezeshkān tā Bār-forushān: Shoghl-hayi ke Nabāyad Suzhe-ye Film-haye Irāni Shavand!” [From doctors to wholesalers: occupations that should not be the topic of Iranian films!], January 12, 2015. Accessed June 15, 2018. https://goo.gl/XHDeMkGoogle Scholar
Korn, Francis. Elementary Structures Reconsidered: Lévi-Strauss on Kinship. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Translated by Bell, James Harle and von Sturmer, John Richard. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1969.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. London: Harvard University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
Mirfakhrāʾi, Tezhā, and Fathi, Esmāʿil. “Tasvir-e Zan dar Film-haye Nokhbe-gara va ‘Āmme-pasand-e Daheh-ye Haftād-e Sināma-ye Irān” [The image of women in the elitist and mainstream films of the 1970s in Irān]. Farhang-e Ertebātāt 1 (2011): 1–34.Google Scholar
Morādi, Alireza, Zamāni, Tubā, and Kāzemi, Ali. “Sinamā va Tafavot: Barasi-ye Neshaneshenākhti-ye Film-e ʿArus-e Ātash” [Cinema and difference: a semiotic reading of the movie ʿArus-e Ātash]. Motāle’at va Tahghighāt-e Ejtemā’i dar Irān 1, no. 4 (2012): 131–154.Google Scholar
Navvāh, Abdolrezā, and Mojtabā Taqavinasab, Seyed. “Ta’sir-e Ehsās-e Mahrumiyat-e Nesbi bar Hoviyat-e Qomi va Hoviyat-e Melli; Motāle’e-ye Moredi: A’rāb-e Ostān-e Khuzestān” [The impact of the sense of relative deprivation on the ethnic identity and national identity; case study: the Arab people of Khuzestān province]. Majale-ye Jame’eshenasi-ye Irān 8, no. 2 (2007): 142–163.Google Scholar
Paglia, Camille. “Sex and Violence.” Chap. 1 in Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. London: Yale University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Qarāʾi Moqaddam, Amānollāh. “Qatl-haye Nāmusi ya ‘Nahve Kardan’ dar Miyān-e Qābāiel-e ‘Arab-e Khuzestān” [Honor killing or “committing Nahva” in the Arab tribes of Khuzestan]. Majale-ye Hoquqi-e Dadgostari 32 (2000): 75–92.Google Scholar
Tājbakhsh, Kiān. “ʿArus-e Ātash: Sonnat; Zanān va Chālesh-haye Pish-e Ru” [ʿArus-e Ātash: Tradition; Women and Challenges Ahead]. Goftegu 38 (2004): 149–158.Google Scholar
Zolfaqāri, Zahrā. “Ādāb va Rosum-e Ezdevāj dar Miyān-e A’rāb-e Khuzestān” [Customs of marriage among the Arabs of Khuzestan]. Motāle’āt-e Khalij-e Fārs 1, no. 2 (2014): 110–115.Google Scholar